Folie 1

1
Social Return on Investment of Mutual Support
Based Housing Projects Potential for
Socio-Economic Cost Savings and Higher Living
Quality
Sarah Borgloh Peter Westerheide European Real
Estate Society Meeting Milano June 25, 2010
2
Outline

• Motivation
• Characteristics of the projects
• Research question
• Methodology/Data
• Main results
• Interpretation

3
Motivation

• Growing share of elder people with need for
  assistance and long term care
• Increasing costs of social security systems
• Need for reforms in health insurance and long
  term care insurance
• Rising importance for subsidiary support from
• Families
• Informal networks
• Neighborhoods

4
Motivation

• To what extent can professional care and support
  be substituted by informal help from neighbors?
• Can substitution produce significant cost
  advantages?
• Analysis of four housing projects with very
  different character, but some common features
• Propagation of neighbourly life and support
• Architectural features and infrastructural
  characteristics to create opportunities for
  frequent contact between neighbors (accessibility
  for handicapped, open contact spaces, meeting
  rooms)
• Coordination and encouragement by social workers

5
Lebensräume für Jung und Alt (Living Spaces for
Young and Old), Liebenau Foundation, Lake
Constance Area
Characteristics of the projects

• 5 locations with 39 to 84 apartments
• Multigenerational approach younger and elder
  residents as owners and renters in households of
  different size
• Provision of professional care services by
  external service provider
• Social workers consult and motivate residents

6
Haus im Viertel (House in the quarter), Bremer
Home Foundation, Bremen
Characteristics of the projects

• Housing complex with 92 apartments (incl.
  restaurant, meeting center, living community for
  dementia patients)
• Focus elder residents with/without need for
  assistance
• External professional care provider in direct
  vicinity
• Social work with focus on neigbourhood support
  provided by manager

7
Residence Heinrichstraße, Protestant
Johanneswerk, Bielefeld
Characteristics of the projects

• Complex with 42 accessible apartments
• Elder and younger residents (partly handicapped)
• Continuous care approach residents can stay
  even if need for support is increasing
• Support by professional service provider
  available
• Joint activities are supported by social
  workersand service staff

8
Multigenerational house, Catholic Caritas holding
company CBT, Wipperfuerth (near Cologne)
Characteristics of the projects

• 2 dwellings with 35 accessible apartments
• Apartment size between 35 und 96 sqm
• Resident of different age and family status
• Professional support not an element of the
  project
• Social work on a case-by-case basis

9
Research question/target of the analysis

• Calculation of the total effect of social
  investments in mutual support based housing
  projects
• Focus Cost or assistance of elder residents
• Measurement of costs and yields for all involved
  parties
• Residents
• Non-profit organizations running the housing
  projects
• Social Insurance
• Municipalities

10
Methodology

• Survey among residents und business level
  analysis of project costs
• Survey among residents in control group, living
  in conventional settings
• Comparison by propensity score matching
  (comparing individuals with similar propensity
  to live in one of the housing projects)

11

Methodology
Comparison of housing projects with conventionaln
housing and assistance settings
Control group
Treatment group
Need for Assistance
Need for Assistance
Propensity score matching
Costs
Costs
Qualitative Aspects
Qualitative Aspects
12
Methodology

• Variables in the PS estimations
• Age
• Sex
• Number of children under age ten in household
• Household size
• Education
• Income
• Number of physical diseases
• Care level
• Handicapped
• Voluntary engagement before moving in
• Information on current/preferred alternative
  housing situation

13
Data

• 222 interviews / 313 persons in the treatment
  group
• 268 interviews / 428 persons in the control
  group

Treatment Group Control Group
Age 57.78 (26.09) 56.64 (26.30)
Female 0.69 (0.46) 0.61 (0.49)
Living in Single Household 0.52 (0.50) 0.40 (0.49)
(Very) Good Health 0.51 (0.50) 0.60 (0.49)
Care Level (Yes) 0.11 (0.32) 0.17 (0.37)
Disabled 0.22 (0.42) 0.22 (0.41)
Table displays variable means. Standard deviation
in parentheses.
14
Basic results

• Lower average costs for assistance
• Lower costs on individual (private household)
  level
• lower costs for social insurance and
  municipalities
• Evidence for positive spillover effects in the
  quarter/urban district
• Better assessment in terms of living quality

15
Some results in more detail
Health status/need for care
Variable Dimension Treatment group Control group Difference Significance
All
Diseases Number 1,03 1,40 -0,37
Need for care Dummy 0,13 0,22 -0,08
Care level Scale 0-3 0,19 0,28 -0,09 ()
Elder than 50
Diseases Number 1,36 2,13 -0,77
Need for care Dummy 0,16 0,33 -0,17
Care level Scale 0-3 0,23 0,41 -0,18
16
Some results in more detail

• Health status
• Better development of health status Health
  status and need for care differ when survey was
  conducted although it was not different when
  people moved in
• Has to be treated cautiously!

17
Some results in more detail

• Health status/need for care two scenarios
  (different composition of compared groups)
• Version 1 health status and need for care equal
  when moving in positive effects in health
  development are attributed to housing projects
• Version 2 health status and need for care equal
  at survey time positive effects in health
  development are treated as exogenous (robustness
  check)

18
Some results in more detail

• Costs
• Version 1 significantly lower total cost
• Version 2 lower cost differences significant
  differences only for group 50

Version 1 Version 1 Version 2 Version 2
total sample 50 total sample 50
-30.9 -50.1 -20.6 -36.0
Source Authors calculations, bold values
significant at least at 90 per cent level.
Total costs, partly imputed.
19
Some results in more detail

• Costs

90-confidence intervals for difference between
treatment and control group (total costs), in
Euro per month
  Version 1 Version 1 Version 2 Version 2
  total sample 50 total sample 50
Lower bound -205.49 -394.48 -160.74 -259.06
Upper bound -13.43 - 144.21 33.56 -44.75
Source Authors calculations, bold values
significant. Total costs, partly imputed.
20
Some results in more detail

• Reasons for cost differences
• Better health development/lower need for care
  (differences between version 1 and 2)
• Inclusion of inpatient care individuals
• Lower need for assistance due to better
  infrastructure (construction)
• Higher incidence of unpaid and voluntary support
  by neighbours in the treatment group

21
Some results in more detail

• Need for regular daily help
• In treatment group lower on average
• significantly different for the elderly
• but inspite of lower need more help from
  neighbours

Treatment group Control group Difference Significance
Daily assist., 50 0,50 0,71 -0,21
Daily assistance received from neighbors, 50 0,07 0,03 0,04
Results for version 1
22
Some results in more detail

• Mutual neighborly help in a wider sense
• More frequently in treatment group than in
  control group given (for all and 50) and
  received (by 50)
• Focus on practical help (z.B. shopping, crafting,
  housekeeping)

  Dimension Treatment Group Control Group Diff. Significance
Support received from neighbors Dummy 0.43 0.26 0.17
Support given to neighbors Dummy 0.51 0.36 0.15
Results for version 1, sample 50
23
Some results in more detail

• Time use and activities outside
• Respondents in treatment group spend
  significantly less time alone at home and take
  more often part in activities with their
  neighbors
• Residents of the four housing projects use
  services offered in the district/urban quarter
  more often than the control group does

24
Some results in more detail

• Housing quality, social life, life satisfaction
• Better assessment of
• housing and living conditions in treatment group
• social life within the quarter/urban district
• Differences increase with age
• No significant differences with respect to
  overall life satisfaction

25
Conclusion/Interpretation

• Decreasing need for assistance and care
• More support from neighbours
• Potential for savings in public budgets
• Savings potential for residents increase of
  disposable income
• Positive spillover effects to urban
  district/quarter
• Not limited to small groups, substantial effects
  of similar projects on a broader scale possible

26
Thank you for your attention!!!
Contact Dr. Peter Westerheide Zentrum für
Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung Centre for
European Economic Research L7 1 68161 Mannheim,
Germany Tel [phone] westerheide_at_zew.de

27
Guideline The concept of Social Return on
Investment
Society
not quantifiable
appraisable
Organization
Indivdual
not appraisable
Level of analysis
Costs / Yields
28
Literature Review

• Housing preferences of elderly
• High preference for independent living (as long
  as possible), housing quality becomes less
  important
• Higher living quality in senior cohousing
  projects
• Mutual support among acquainted persons
• Needs frequent contact to emerge
• Costs of support
• Some indirect evidence of cost savings potential
  in CCRC
• No systematic analysis of relative costs of
  mutual support based housing projects (compared
  to conventional models)

29
Methodology The concept of Social Return on
Investment

• Social Return on Investment (SROI) levels of
  analysis
• Economic Value economic yield, conventionally
  defined and quantified in monetary terms, on
  individual and project level
• Socio-Economic Value value added on societal
  level, quantified in monetary terms
• Social Value value added, not quantifiable in
  monetary terms